SURJA versus HARDEVA AND ORS.

SURJA versus HARDEVA AND ORS.

The question whether the land was part of the reserved or selected area is a jurisdictional fact, and the revisional authority (Financial Commissioner) had jurisdiction to go into that question. As such, the matter should be remanded to the Financial Commissioner to determine on the merits whether selection was properly made, genuine, and within time, as such issues go to the root of jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: Surja; Respondent No. 1: Hardeva; Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4: Unknown
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 October 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate (by Special Leave) From High Court Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, Right of Tenant to Purchase, Reserved and Selected Land, Revisional Jurisdiction, Question of Jurisdictional Fact
Land Law Tenancy Law Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act Right of Tenant to Purchase Reserved and Selected Land Revisional Jurisdiction Question of Jurisdictional Fact

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surja

Appellant

Hardeva

Respondent No. 1

Unknown

Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate (by Special Leave) From High Court Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land sought to be purchased by the tenant was part of the reserved or selected area?
  2. 2 Whether the Financial Commissioner had jurisdiction to consider jurisdictional facts on revision under s. 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act?
  3. 3 Whether the High Court rightly interfered with the orders of the authorities below based on the issue of selection under s. 5-B?

Ratio Decidendi

The question whether the land was part of the reserved or selected area is a jurisdictional fact, and the revisional authority (Financial Commissioner) had jurisdiction to go into that question. As such, the matter should be remanded to the Financial Commissioner to determine on the merits whether selection was properly made, genuine, and within time, as such issues go to the root of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Orders of the High Court and Financial Commissioner set aside.
  • Case remanded to the Financial Commissioner to dispose of the revision on merits in accordance with law.